(11-09-2013 01:17 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote: By the way, I'd be careful not to repeat that comment around a kindergartener. You might embarass yourself.

You mean you guys believe that it's possible for an equation to predict (correctly) the outcome of the human or any other species?

Example please.

why do you take things to such extremes?

predicting the outcome of humans it's impossible right now. It might be possible (in theory) but we can't be sure, because there're limits to the predictive power of equations (quantum mechanics have to deal with that limit all the time, for example). Conclusion, it's still a matter of debate and research.

A true hypothesis is based on the fact that a theory has reliability and validity. In other words, a+b=c. Then the hypothesis must give evidence to support the theory.
Too bad atheism and evolution lack in all departments. Keep trying though, gay priders.

(11-09-2013 10:34 PM)theword Wrote: A true hypothesis is based on the fact that a theory has reliability and validity. In other words, a+b=c. Then the hypothesis must give evidence to support the theory.
Too bad atheism and evolution lack in all departments. Keep trying though, gay priders.

Hypotheses are ideas that spring from the human imagination. One of the possible limits of science is our own failure to be creative in coming up with ideas that could accurate describe reality, and struturing those ideas such that they make specific testable predictions that can be compared with each other.

.. but you know it's really hard to take you seriously when you say stupid unsubstantiated argument from ignorance shit like this:

(11-09-2013 11:41 AM)I and I Wrote: Equations aren't good at all at predicting the outcomes of the behavior of matter in space or on earth let alone matter that influences and is co-influenced by other matter.
But that is a different issue.

when what you mean is

Quote:I&I isn't good at all at predicting the outcomes of the behaviour of matter in space or on earth let alone matter than influences and is co-influenced by other matter.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.

I'm going to assume that I and I is trolling again, but I'll throw my two cents into the fire for anyone else reading this.

Hypotheses (that's the plural I & I) are based off of observations and prior knowledge (if available), how could it not be? I observe faunal turnover in the rock record and a specific interval everywhere that interval is exposed (locally and globally). I hypothesize this is a mass extinction event. Also observed in during this interval is a change in lithology and a change in isotope ratios. I hypothesize that these are related to the mass extinction and indicate either the trigger or kill mechanism. I test my observations by looking at what the isotope record says, what the lithologic record says, and then look to see if selectivity during the extinction supports the trigger and kill mechanisms.

Also, for whatever reason someone brought up the tangent of equations and predictions, a lot of equations I use (chemistry related) are based off of analytical experiments. Meaning that equations are descriptions of natural systems and can be used to make inferences.

For instance

Temperature (degrees C) = 16.9 - 4*(delta18Ocalcite - delta18Owater)

Using that equation, I can calculate seasonal temperature changes in shells. (ergo, an equation that shows how the physical universe behaves.)

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!! You're getting way too technical for him. He can't follow that. "Plural" is way too esoteric of a concept for him. It requires background knowledge of numbers, and amounts of things that you can't possibly expect him to understand.

(11-09-2013 11:58 AM)I and I Wrote: you mean mathematics can predict the actions of a toaster? WOW

What do you think the manufacturers of toasters use to calculate the electrical resistance and BTU output of the heating elements, or the necessary spring tension to lift the toast caddy, or any of the other technical specs they apply to ensure your toaster doesn't burn your house down? They use math. DUH. Oppenheimer used mathematical equations to predict the energy yield of the first atomic weapons. He also used equations to predict a safe distance from which to observe the experimental tests preventing his team from being blown into oblivion. Astronomical physicists use mathematical equations to calculate the necessary thrust an trajectory to place probes in orbit around other planets. Clearly you have never cracked a textbook on basic physics. If you had, you'd know it's mostly math.

I and I Wrote:You mean you guys believe that it's possible for an equation to predict (correctly) the outcome of the human or any other species?

It is possible for an equation to do this. It is only a matter of identifying all the variables involved. Unfortunately, we do not currently have the ability to identify or track all variables pertaining to individual behavior, much less group interaction . But, if it was available we could write the equation.

So A Hypothesis starts from a biased perspective that is influenced by ones cultural upbringing, ideological and social beliefs. And you guys are claiming there is a process to get a result from this origin that is free of bias, ideological, cultural and social influence.

(14-09-2013 05:50 PM)I and I Wrote: So A Hypothesis starts from a biased perspective that is influenced by ones cultural upbringing, ideological and social beliefs. And you guys are claiming there is a process to get a result from this origin that is free of bias, ideological, cultural and social influence.

Actually, yes. It is called reproducible empirical evidence. A paper on a new idea is published along with the empirical evidence supporting the claim, and then another scientist from some other culture, ideology, social beliefs, etc attempts to recreate the experiment to achieve the same results. And since scientists make their bones and earn their reputations when they can shoot down other scientists and prove themselves right, we have a system that encourages debunking bad science.